More Chieftain's Hatchiness

[DB]

.. note to self, wait until you've seen the video.

Edited September 13, 2021 by DB

[Markus Becker]

M4 on steroids but still kosher. 

 

 

[shep854]

5 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

M4 on steroids but still kosher. 

 

 

Those things look big until Nick sits on them...

My mind writhed a bit each time he said, 'M3 Sherman'...

Edited October 19, 2021 by shep854

[bojan]

There was also M4, but that one was armed with 105mm howitzer and ended converted to M50s.

As Nick have noted, IDF Shermans are Spanish Hapsburg level complicated.

Edited October 19, 2021 by bojan

[shep854]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

There was also M4, but that one was armed with 105mm howitzer and ended converted to M50s.

As Nick have noted, IDF Shermans are Spanish Hapsburg level complicated.

Yep.  The Tank Encyclopedia and Restoration Passion videos went into great detail, but Nick's offering is still interesting and enlightening.  I'm looking forward to Pt.2!

[Rick]

16 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

M4 on steroids but still kosher. 

 

 

Why the barbed wire coil on the front?

[shep854]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

Why the barbed wire coil on the front?

Apparently it represents the coils of wire tanks carried to secure their positions when they laagered up for the night.  Vehicles in Vietnam also carried wire

[Inhapi]

19 hours ago, bojan said:

There was also M4, but that one was armed with 105mm howitzer and ended converted to M50s.

As Nick have noted, IDF Shermans are Spanish Hapsburg level complicated.

true, they start out with a lot of different models and by sort of inbreeding all end up being M50'ies or M51's 🙂

[Harold Jones]

11 hours ago, shep854 said:

Apparently it represents the coils of wire tanks carried to secure their positions when they laagered up for the night.  Vehicles in Vietnam also carried wire

So did M1s during the cold war and ODS

[shep854]

13 hours ago, Harold Jones said:

So did M1s during the cold war and ODS

How long does it take to string out and take in?

[Harold Jones]

In the desert a couple minutes, in Germany it depended on ground cover.  Dragging it through bushes and high grass sucked.  Mostly we just carried it on the tank, we didn't put it out very often.

[shep854]

Not 'The Hatch' per se but...claustophobia doesn't seem to be one of Manic's faults.  Just the thought of being stuck under that wheel or jamming my foot gives me a bit of the willies.

 

[EvanDP]

Manic you need to to see if you can use this to get into the Petersen Museum. You can do a short called "Does Chieftain Fit in a Ford GT40" or the 66 Batmobile and I think they got Herbie too.

[Coldsteel]

10 hours ago, shep854 said:

Not 'The Hatch' per se but...claustophobia doesn't seem to be one of Manic's faults.  Just the thought of being stuck under that wheel or jamming my foot gives me a bit of the willies.

 

I've never climbed into it but even standing next to one and even knowing it is possible for an average person, I just got mental images of having to fold your knees the wrong way, and err, no I don't want to do that.

Also that wasn't an LP2, the full title for which is something like Carrier, Machine Gun, Local Pattern, No. 2, or 2A if it had the other axle. It fits between the LP1 MG carrier, 160 or so built, and the LP3 MG carrier, which was experimental only. The 2 pounder carrier, being something other than a local pattern MG carrier, is usually just identified as Carrier, 2 Pdr (Aust) or Carrier, Anti-tank, 2-pdr (Aust). I believe it may have had a "tank attack" variation like all the other anti tank weapons at the time to place emphasis active aggression against AFVs, like the PIAT being Projector, Infantry, Tank-Attack, in Australian use.

[bojan]

8 minutes ago, Coldsteel said:

....Projector, Infantry, Tank-Attack, in Australian use.

PITA. A best description for PIAT ever.

[Manic Moran]

3 hours ago, Coldsteel said:

I've never climbed into it but even standing next to one and even knowing it is possible for an average person, I just got mental images of having to fold your knees the wrong way, and err, no I don't want to do that.

Also that wasn't an LP2, the full title for which is something like Carrier, Machine Gun, Local Pattern, No. 2, or 2A if it had the other axle. It fits between the LP1 MG carrier, 160 or so built, and the LP3 MG carrier, which was experimental only. The 2 pounder carrier, being something other than a local pattern MG carrier, is usually just identified as Carrier, 2 Pdr (Aust) or Carrier, Anti-tank, 2-pdr (Aust). I believe it may have had a "tank attack" variation like all the other anti tank weapons at the time to place emphasis active aggression against AFVs, like the PIAT being Projector, Infantry, Tank-Attack, in Australian use.

The manual, as I recall, states, "Carrier, 2-pr, Tank Attack"

[Gavin-Phillips]

9 hours ago, bojan said:

PITA. A best description for PIAT ever.

Ranks up there with cornre (I think) durgs and all the other strange concoctions of words that I've seen on this site.  Brilliant stuff.

[shep854]

 

[Coldsteel]

17 hours ago, bojan said:

PITA. A best description for PIAT ever.

"Bring up the PITA!"

13 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

The manual, as I recall, states, "Carrier, 2-pr, Tank Attack"

Could be, the anti tank equipment nomenclature did change from one to the other. I thought I had a pdf of a manual for it, but I can't seem to find it so I might be misremembering, but I've only seen first hand material that looks like this:

but I've never laid eyes on anything official that used the "Tank Attack" variation for that particular vehicle.

[Manic Moran]

I sit corrected, now I have gone home and pulled up the manual. I know I saw "tank attack" somewhere more official than random web pages, though. Australian Museum of Armor and Artillery describe theirs as an "Attack Carrier". It has its roots somewhere.

[Coldsteel]

The "Tank Attack" bit is real, Mike Cecil has a nice wall of text about it, I just don't know how common that usage actually was given its absence in the material available to me. The manual doesn't use it, the data plate riveted to the actual vehicle doesn't use it, and that tallies with what Mike wrote that when asked "What do you want these things called?" the Army did not reply "Tank Attack" or anything similar, so how wedded to that can they have been? And then they went back to "anti tank" when the war was over anyway. According to the army, for a period of time, yes that was a carrier for a 2 pounder tank attack gun.

The AAAM sometimes appear a bit puzzled by what they have in their possession, and I'm pretty sure they copied some of the text on their exhibit display boards straight off Wikipedia, they might have grabbed the 2pdr carrier info somewhere off the web too?

[shep854]

 

[shep854]

I knew there were some things about the movie that didn't seem right...

 

[shep854]

 

[DogDodger]

4 hours ago, shep854 said:

 

The machine formerly at the Ordnance Museum?